Labor needs to stand and deliver on defence

Crean's lack of interest in national security could cost him the prime ministership.

Simon Crean won a convincing victory over Kim Beazley in yesterday's Labor leadership battle. However, to rephrase a common saying, he did not have a good war. With respect to Iraq, that is.

The Opposition Leader has made it clear he wishes to fight the next election on an economic and social agenda, namely health, education and the environment. From a Labor perspective, this makes sense. The success of the ALP in all the states and territories indicates that most voters are comfortable with Labor's stance on social issues. It is just that Commonwealth polls frequently involve matters of national security - in addition to economic policy.

Crean has difficulties in projecting his persona to the electorate. All the same, he comes across as knowledgeable on his preferred topics. This was evident in his reply to Peter Costello's budget speech. It was notable, however, that (unlike the Treasurer) Crean made no reference to foreign policy or defence. National security is not really his interest.

Once upon a time, this may not have mattered much. But the Western world changed on September 11, 2001, and again on October 12, 2002.

After the suicide-homicide attacks on the US and on Westerners and others in Bali, it is unlikely that any political party in the West will retain or win office unless it is seen to be credible on national security.

This is evident in the US, where the Democrats are struggling to make an impact on George Bush, despite an economic downturn.

Joe Lieberman, who was the Democrat vice-presidential candidate in 2000, summed up the issue at a convention in early May. Lieberman told his social democratic colleagues that the Democrats could not defeat the Bush Administration unless they were strong on defence.

Bill Richardson, one of the few Democrats to do well in the 2002 elections, has made a similar assessment. The Governor of New Mexico told his colleagues on May 26 that to be successful in 2004, the Democrats would have to persuade Americans that they had a strong national security message and, if necessary, would use force in the US national interest.

Some social democrats are credible on national security - Tony Blair and Jack Straw in Britain and Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd in Australia, among others. Indeed, Beazley did well to win 49 per cent of the vote after preferences at the last election - which took place in the midst of the US-led war on terrorism in which Australia played a significant role. War and insecurity invariably favour incumbent governments.

John Howard is strong on national security - as are many of his senior colleagues, including Peter Costello, John Anderson, Alexander Downer, Robert Hill and Tony Abbott. It would be unreasonable to expect a Labor leader to outperform the Prime Minister on this issue, but not unrealistic to expect him to neutralise the issue, to some extent at least.

So far, at least, Simon Crean has not been convincing on national security.

First there was his response to the Howard Government's proposal that Australia should co-operate with the US in its attempt to develop a missile defence system (the so-called "Son of Star Wars"). At a news conference on February 27, Crean set out Labor's opposition to this concept.

As with much new or proposed defence technology, there are usually arguments both for and against any specific project. The problem with Crean's response turned on the fact that he erred on basic facts. He presented missile defence as a "system that protects only the US coastline" (it wouldn't) and involves the use of a "nuclear weaponry capacity" (it doesn't).

Then there was the second Gulf War. It is perhaps understandable why Labor, especially when out of government, would oppose the commitment of the Australian Defence Force to a conflict that did not have the explicit sanction of the United Nations Security Council.

But Crean blundered when he chose to join the Prime Minister at the January 23 official farewell on HMAS Kanimbla and then told the men and women of the ADF and their families: "I don't believe that you should be going." It was a message for another occasion.

On April 11, just after the collapse of Saddam's regime, Crean was interviewed on ABC radio's AM program. Asked by compere Linda Mottram whether this was "not a good thing", the Opposition Leader was initially positive but then questioned the means by which the regime had been replaced, commenting: "Now that it's happened, we've got to accept that it's happened."

Once again, this amounted to a significant misreading of the political mood in Australia - as is likely to become apparent when ADF personnel involved in the Iraq war march through the streets of Sydney and Perth.

In the leadership contest, Simon Crean received significant support from the ALP Left - along with some members of the Right (Mark Latham, Laurie Brereton) who saw fit to march with Bob Brown or share a platform with John Pilger during demonstrations against the ADF's deployment to the Gulf.

In the final analysis, leftists are going to give their preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition. The task for Crean is to win back swinging voters who supported Howard last time round.

At a time of international insecurity, and well-founded concern about terrorism, this can best be achieved if Labor sends out a message that it is strong on national security.

This is an issue Simon Crean will need to tackle if Labor is to defeat the Coalition any time soon.